Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:49615) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RF7lC-0001sv-Ts; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:11:06 -0700 Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf1251890pzk.16 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-disposition; bh=VD+LpRn9XwnV1t8nw9AcL+JGVHhzaAokrbTX4kSPBZE=; b=IE/cyH8GASD45vKD0uKoIAWvLgdkmLKvwhxlzROFPV67SklbAOAwYxg4QaqXCurcec oTTtI3GEL0UQLUxfEctf8zItnK2Ww5sAyrJeoSU/x+NcUj/C6hm+VyeOoXOORzx0JAYN XHz6agdm+zawXdz6tFh9l8vRkW/sQc7b7HQnk= Received: by 10.68.71.167 with SMTP id w7mr541215pbu.15.1318698649880; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.25.98 with SMTP id b2ls7548255pbg.3.gmail; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.8.229 with SMTP id u5mr18316502pba.0.1318698649279; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.8.229 with SMTP id u5mr18316500pba.0.1318698649269; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r5si12890537pbe.1.2011.10.15.10.10.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.210.45 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) client-ip=209.85.210.45; Received: by mail-pz0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 1so755993pzk.4 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.19.42 with SMTP id b10mr25448290pbe.45.1318698648722; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (c-76-113-7-111.hsd1.nm.comcast.net. [76.113.7.111]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w4sm36442161pbf.6.2011.10.15.10.10.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:10:40 -0601 From: ".alyn.post." To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Mass import into jbovlaste ? Message-ID: <20111015171104.GP29295@sunflowerriver.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com References: <21901165.712.1318343884555.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqmn40> <20111011204150.GJ30294@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <25008727.890.1318431452883.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbds1> <28292530.575.1318605393862.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbza28> <20111015065525.GC16603@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <19551811.3018.1318666724641.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbat14> <6841919.647.1318669686432.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmh5> <20111015160357.GO29295@sunflowerriver.org> <2178485.425.1318696701751.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbay19> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2178485.425.1318696701751.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbay19> X-Original-Sender: alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.85.210.45 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) smtp.mail=alanpost@sunflowerriver.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Spam_score: 2.1 X-Spam_score_int: 21 X-Spam_bar: ++ X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I understand that some of these words have gismu that mean (essentially) the same thing, like brito. Yet the gismu were created with one algorithm as well. Will you help me understand how your reasoning applies here? [...] Content analysis details: (2.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.4 BUG6152_INVALID_DATE_TZ_ABSURD BUG6152_INVALID_DATE_TZ_ABSURD 0.6 INVALID_DATE_TZ_ABSURD Invalid Date: header (timezone does not exist) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature I understand that some of these words have gismu that mean (essentially) the same thing, like brito. Yet the gismu were created with one algorithm as well. Will you help me understand how your reasoning applies here? If I reject brito must I reject all of the gismu? Conversely, if I reject whatever word means roughly the same thing as brito in this word set, must I reject all of the words in this word set? I don't understand how your argument for regularity applies for other "regular" sets of words, particularly when there is an apparent conflict. To be clear, I'm curious about your request to have all of these words treated as a unit/special case, not about the words themselves. (That conversation was had creating them.) In the far future, if, say, we discover that gugde'usu is a very, very terrible word (let's pretend that in that country's language it sounds uncomfortably similar to baby raping), do we retroactively rescind all of these words? Do we tell users of that word that this sound does not mean what they think it means? Do we let the future deal with the future's problems? Is "being created by one algorithm" a sufficient reason to create a block of words? If so, is it a sufficient reason to rescind/remove/destroy a block of words? Are you willing to stand behind the removal of all of these words for the same reason you're stating we should stand behind creating them? -Alan On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 09:38:21AM -0700, najrut wrote: > They were all created by one algorithm. They all reflect just one table of > ISO codes. > If we reject this table then we reject all those valsi. And vice versa. > If gugdefuru has the right to exist why gugde'usu cannot ? And vice > versa. > I consider all those words as one large regular table. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > [1]https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/d3L9tEH84CQJ. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > References > > Visible links > 1. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/d3L9tEH84CQJ -- .i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.